[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1182549202.3228.78.camel@dhcp193.mvista.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:53:21 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, matthew.wilcox@...com,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:40 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> - tasklets have certain fairness limitations. (they are executed in
> softirq context and thus preempt everything, even if there is some
> potentially more important, high-priority task waiting to be
> executed.)
Since -rt has been executing tasklets in process context for a long
time, I'm not sure this change would cause to many regressions. However,
it seems like implicit dependencies on "tasklets preempt everything"
might crop up. The other issue is if they don't "preempt
everything" (most of the time), what default priority do we give them
(all of the time)? It seems like Christoph's suggestion of converting
all the tasklets individually might be a better option, to deal with
specific pitfalls.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists